# C_2019139EN.01008301.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/83

---

Action brought on 19 February 2019 — Garriga Polledo and Others v Parliament

(Case T-102/19)

(2019/C 139/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Salvador Garriga Polledo (Madrid, Spain) and 45 other applicants (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, p.8); |
| --- | --- |

—

where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, p.8);

| — | annul the abovementioned decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, in so far as it amends Article 76 of the IMS (recitals 5 and 6, Article 1(7)) and Article 2 in so far as it concerns Article 76 of the IMS of the abovementioned decision), or, alternatively, if those sections were not considered to be severable from the remainder of the contested measure, to annul the abovementioned measure in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the abovementioned decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, in so far as it amends Article 76 of the IMS (recitals 5 and 6, Article 1(7)) and Article 2 in so far as it concerns Article 76 of the IMS of the abovementioned decision), or, alternatively, if those sections were not considered to be severable from the remainder of the contested measure, to annul the abovementioned measure in its entirety;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the Bureau’s lack of competence ratione materiae






  — | first, the contested measure infringed the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom, (OJ 2005 L 262, p.1) (‘the Statute’). The contested measure is in particular contrary to Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ must be maintained. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Bureau’s lack of competence ratione materiae

—

first, the contested measure infringed the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom, (OJ 2005 L 262, p.1) (‘the Statute’). The contested measure is in particular contrary to Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ must be maintained.

| — | secondly, the contested measure introduces a tax by imposing a special levy amounting to 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, whereas the introduction of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the contested measure introduces a tax by imposing a special levy amounting to 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, whereas the introduction of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.






  — | first, the Bureau is criticised for having adopted the contested measure without complying with the rules imposed by Article 223 TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

—

first, the Bureau is criticised for having adopted the contested measure without complying with the rules imposed by Article 223 TFEU.

| — | secondly, the contested measure is insufficiently reasoned and thus infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the contested measure is insufficiently reasoned and thus infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.






  — | first, the contested measure infringes acquired rights and future entitlements resulting from general legal principles and the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27). |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.

—

first, the contested measure infringes acquired rights and future entitlements resulting from general legal principles and the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27).

| — | secondly, the contested measure infringes the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the contested measure infringes the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.






  — | first, the infringements of the applicants’ rights are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the contested measure. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

—

first, the infringements of the applicants’ rights are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the contested measure.

| — | secondly, the contested measure must be annulled on the basis that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the contested measure must be annulled on the basis that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.






  — | first, the contested measure infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effect. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.

—

first, the contested measure infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effect.

| — | secondly, the contested measure infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to lay down transitional measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the contested measure infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to lay down transitional measures.

---